Jump to content

695 Contract vote meeting this Sat


wolfvid

Recommended Posts

Accomplishments in labor relations are often a double-edge sword. It’s true that every organizing effort brings in new members who are then eligible to compete for scarce jobs. But ours is a competitive field and needing to stand out from a crowd is just a part of it. Seeking to restrict membership to limit competition is not the way to deal with this challenge.

...

The Taft-Hartley Act does not permit restricting union membership to limit competition but the IATSE locals have long used Roster status as an indirect method to accomplish this. For many years membership in the crafts unions was restricted to those already on the inside or closely related to someone on the inside.

...

The immediate results of restrictive membership policies are good; the fortunate few already in the club enjoy steady and (more or less) abundant work opportunities. But the long-term results are entirely predictable and not so good. Those on the outside don’t just go away and become pharmacist assistants or telemarketers; they seek other opportunities to work in show business. And that’s what happened – they worked for Roger Corman and Cannon Films and Trans World Entertainment (aka Third World Entertainment) and others. They worked for the small companies making commercials or industrials and they joined alternate labor organizations like NABET. For awhile the IATSE had a lock on the highly skilled craftspeople needed for ambitious projects but, in time, the non-union and alternate union people become better at their tasks. When Easy Rider, shot by Laszlo Kovacs with a NABET crew, did huge business in 1969, it was already apparent that an IATSE crew was not a prerequisite to commercial success. Sadly it was another twenty years or so before most of the locals provided a pathway for membership.

...

Be careful what you wish for. Gains made by trying to restrict access are the fruit of a poisoned tree.

Thank you David...wish there were more people here in New York who shared this opinion, getting myself voted into Local 52 has been trying, to say it politely.

From the outside looking in, I do agree with everything you members of the IA are standing up for. And even though my local has not given me the right to join you, I encourage you to stand up for what is right.

e.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I’m not in agreement that we need another “Jack Coffey” to reinvigorate the spine of the union. Quite the contrary, for all his success, I think that Jack Coffey’s policies are the very ones that germinated the seeds of our troubles today.

OK, I guess I have no choice but to jump in to defend the honor of my old man. I could write a book because I have never seen anyone like him before or since. A start would be reading the article I wrote at:

http://soundandpictureonline.com/wp-content/issues/Coffey_Files/Summer2010/index.html

I love you David, but it's absurd to say that a Jack Coffey of 35 years ago somehow led to causing our troubles today. In the first place he was a IA rogue who only cared about his members opinions then. The IA certainly did not listen to him or do anything he said anyway, ever. He carried no influence with the IA except to cause them grief. He did personally believe that he was paid by his members to represent his members only, but that thinking hardly "germinated" anywhere .

You are throwing out the baby with the bath water because Jack did do way more for his members in his reign than any other time in IA history. He literally bled union blood and gave the best years of his life to it. They were not good years for him at all. He was persecuted in ways you can't imagine for being the IA rebel. I was a firsthand observer to his personal destruction for his anti IA actions and never understood why he would not tow the line. Why couldn't he play golf with them twice a week and just get along?

Nobody can fight the IA and the producers, and survive. He didn't.

Since we are on the topic of this contract ratification, here's what happened with a contract back then:

Our contact was negotiated and we were told it was the best the IA could do. Jack argued that fallacy throughout the entire negotiations. Union meetings then were standing room only. (Nobody missed them. You would be ashamed to admit to anyone if you did.) The union was their life and after the dust settled internally, they were always brothers and sisters in a united front to the producers. When it came time to vote on the contract, Jack convinced Local 695 members not to ratify it. They voted no. He then attended other local's meetings (over the objections of their BAs) and addressed their members and a few more locals voted no. They all stood on the cliff. It was a long drawn out fight for months that made headline news every day, but the result was spectacular for the members. They wound up getting a 12%+12%+15% (+5%retroactive) three year contract raise + better conditions and pay for extras. Jack of course was thrown out of office... again.

Every single IA negotiation always ends with the same scenario every time. The members are told that this is the best contract they can get. We are told that next time they will work on the wages or new media, long hours or ....and every time we give back more and more. When I attended the meeting last Saturday, I made a point that there has to be a time in the near future where members draw a line in the sand. I tried to relate our union today to the sacrifices of the members who created it in the forties. Most people don't know any IA history, but I think the IA should teach a class in it before they join our union. For those who don't know, in the late forties, the workers from every single studio wnet out on strike. In those days picketers were beaten in the streets. Those members were willing to sacrifice their only livelihood. They were threatened with being replaced with non-union workers and banned from the studios for life. They could do that then. They held tight and won that strike. Our union is passed down from their fights.

At the meeting that correlation was dismissed by saying they didn't face the same consequences we face today and that today's workers would see their jobs go to other states and picket lines would be crossed. I didn't want to side track the meeting by responding, because I'm just thought of as the angry guy who beats the same drum. While this may be true, the comparison is not. The workers in the forties faced permanent replacement and would be banned from the the studios for life. There were no other work options then , it was the studios or no work anywhere. Today's worker at least has some options, including following the work to other states or working on the many non-union projects all around town for the cable channels. Neither option is good, but my point was that those workers back then were willing to put their jobs on the line. At the end of the day, that is the only power a union has to really negotiate and win. The union apathy today shows we probably are not there yet. The producers know that and it puts the IA in a tough bargaining spot.

The state of the unions in the whole nation today is very weak. Unions and middle class have been broken. They used to blame unions for everything wrong in the country. You don't hear that much anymore. Now people realize that having a middle class was not such a bad thing after all. Corporations always come begging to the workers when their business is in trouble. The autoworkers, airline workers and many others work with managements that are in trouble, but they never want to pay workers to share in the good times. We are lucky because we are still in a business that continues to prosper and make billions in profits. Yet they only want to throws bones at their workers, who still work unconscionable long hours. A twelve hour day/60 hour week is considered good in the IA when everyone else in America works 8/40. Every year there are more and more cuts. I wonder when the members will say it's not worth it anymore and fight back. If not this year, next time or next time...what will be left when we finally say no?

In the last negotiations they dropped many members from the medical plan if they couldn't bank 400 hours instead of 300 hours. I couldn't do that. Neither could many more of our now suffering brother's and sister's families. For me, that was the line in the sand.

John Coffey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no choice but to jump in to defend the honor of my old man. I could write a book...

1) You should write that book, or at least write something and post it so that it can be downloaded for e-book readers. It's important, very important, for thoughts and opinions to be written down for current and future generations.

2) History is so freaking important when it comes to union membership and union support.

The reasons that unions exist is so that working people (and you're a working person if you make $10K a year or if you make $100K+ a year) can use their combined strengths to negotiate with employers on an equal basis. If skilled people won't work then the people that want to use their skills are fucked.

I'm not an IA member but I've been a long time union supporter.

34 years ago when I got a job selling cameras in NYC my fellow employees where amazed when I eagerly signed up with the Teamsters (It was a Teamster shop).

When I left a photo editing position at a major national news magazine and asked the Newspaper Guild if I could continue my membership as a freelancer what I got was a great big HUH? I wanted to be a union member and they couldn't figure out a way to let me continue to be one, unlike the equivalent unions in places like Britain.

In other words, If you SOBs that HAVE a union that you can belong to refuse to get off your asses and USE your union membership to get a fair, and what-any-working-person would-consider-to-be-a-reasonable return for your labors then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Pardon the rant for anyone easily offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing retirement and health plan concessions, and what they consider low wage increases, opponents urge a No vote on the recent tentative deal – but it’s unknown how widespread that sentiment is.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/opposition-iatse-deal-emerges-318031

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole thing was a "show" to convince the membership that something was accomplished on their behalf.

Organizing shows and growing membership does not benefit existing members. It increases the union workforce and creates competition for union jobs, many of which now have crappy pay and no benefits and poor conditions.

Actually, I completely disagree. Organizing new shows gets more labor hours contributing to the Motion Picture Health Plan. The more hours contributed, the better funded our plan will be. That much should be obvious. Also, the new people granted membership under the organization may or may not re-qualify for MPIHP because they've only ever worked 1 union show. But their hours and contribution to the plan remain, giving you and me better benefits. That's why the threshold was raised to 400 hours, to keep more of the part timers from qualifying.

A rising tide lifts all boats, and the more jobs that are union the better it is for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I completely disagree. Organizing new shows gets more labor hours contributing to the Motion Picture Health Plan. The more hours contributed, the better funded our plan will be. That much should be obvious. Also, the new people granted membership under the organization may or may not re-qualify for MPIHP because they've only ever worked 1 union show. But their hours and contribution to the plan remain, giving you and me better benefits. That's why the threshold was raised to 400 hours, to keep more of the part timers from qualifying.

A rising tide lifts all boats, and the more jobs that are union the better it is for all of us.

I do understand the concept. Much like a gym sells memberships hoping people never show. It keeps the place afloat for those who work out every day. But if everyone showed up it'd be a disaster.

Increased membership helps folks like you and me, who work enough and who utilize the benefits. But many good members fall off the bottom, for one reason or another.

It seems cold hearted to me to watch it happen without wanting to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it's absurd to say that a Jack Coffey of 35 years ago somehow led to causing our troubles today

[John Coffey, Jun 12]

John,

Shortly after writing my post a cold wind blew across my desk. I sensed that, by involving Jack Coffey in my discussion, I had overstated my case. Furthermore, it was hardly sporting of me to post anything critical of a man who can no longer speak in his own defense. Fortunately, he has a son who can ably speak for him.

I apologize for suggesting that Jack Coffey was responsible for the restrictive membership policies of the union.

Nearly all of the Hollywood locals had restrictive membership policies from the late fifties through the sixties, the seventies and into the late eighties. The locals used Roster status as an end-run around provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act that clearly supported more open membership policies. It was the widespread practice of the time and I don’t think any particular individual can be tasked with its practice.

Still, I wince whenever anyone speaks fondly of the old days when the union was more effective at wringing concessions from the studios. Anyone locked out by arbitrary membership restrictions wouldn’t view those days from the same perspective.

We all owe a debt to the determination and courage of labor leaders in previous generations. Let’s seek to emulate their cohesive spirit but let’s not advocate a return to the good days of yesteryear.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm going to refrain from entering the fray regarding what Jack Coffey did or didn't do for Local 695 (I only met him on a couple of occasions, so I'm not in a position to weigh in), I was struck by John's comment regarding the Business Agents's of sister local's objecting to Jack attending their meetings and addressing the membership.

While it is now ancient history, it is interesting to note than when Local 695 was formed in September of 1930, the heads of about a half-dozen unions whose members were employed in the film industry were invited to attend the meeting. At least two of them addressed the membership about the conditions they would be facing at the time, and urged them to stand together in the face of what would turn into an extremely difficult battle. It is unfortunate that this level of cooperation does not seem to exist among many of the IA locals currently. Our failure to stand together as a united front during negotiations with the producers simply provides further ammunition to the producers rep's by dividing the membership and allowing the studios to pick off the locals one-by-one.

It is important to remember that the only way to combat the unreasonable demands of producers is to stand together as an industry. It is onlly tool we have left in the fight. The bitter strikes of the 1930's are proof as to the lengths studios will go to protect their interests. Nothing has changed in this regard. The only difference today is that instead of using clubs and fire hoses to get their way, they have simply to hold the threat of taking work out of the country over our heads (which was a much more difficult proposition back then). This is the way all multi-national corporations operate (which includes the parant companies of virtually every studio).

While this is no idle threat (we all have seen what has happened in Canada), the complications and costs of working either out of state or out of the country are still significant (even with tax incentives). At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves how much we are willing to give up as a combined industry workforce to further line the pockets of the producers at the expense of those who make them. This means putting aside many of the petty differences and animosities between locals that seem to evolve over time, and focus on the one thing that's important; keeping our jobs, and not giving away everything in the process. Beyond that, nothing else matters.

Further, while we will never regain what we had 35 years ago (at least in our lifetimes), it is interesting to note that there were plenty of films made 35 years ago with reasonable budgets, without killing the crews. These pictures went on to rake in millions at the boxoffice, which allowed the studios to make more films, and provided a fairly decent living for the people who made them. That formula seems to be totally up-ended today, with studios focused on making a few big-budget movies (with big-budgets stars), and shunning smaller productions. The net result is fewer people being employed, with a reduction of the pool of talent working both in front of and behind the camera. While industry pundits can argue ad-infinitum over whether or not this approach has boosted the bottom lines of the studios, there is nothing positive that can be said about a system which robs the industry of jobs and potential talent.

Based on the numbers I've seen, the real income of most IATSE members has dropped significantly over this same period, so when producers rail on about the high cost of production, I think they need to look elsewhere for a scapegoat.

(Sorry about the long post...)

--S

I’m not in agreement that we need another “Jack Coffey” to reinvigorate the spine of the union. Quite the contrary, for all his success, I think that Jack Coffey’s policies are the very ones that germinated the seeds of our troubles today.

snip>>He then attended other local's meetings (over the objections of their BAs) and addressed their members and a few more locals voted no. They all stood on the cliff<<

John Coffey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Coffey was my third man on the first 3 studio tv shows that I ever boomed. Indeed, that was quite an education. We got along great and at the time, he was constantly amused by my argument that the IA should be more open to new membership. Years later, he made it a point to tell me that I was right and that it was a good and necessary thing to do when the IA opened up. It's all an evolution. Jack was then and this is now. Matt Loeb entered these contract negotiations with a level of transparency and inclusion that has never existed in the IA. Having ALL the locals present for each day of negotiations was absolutely unprecedented and totally caught the producers by surprise. There's no way we could ever know for sure but I'm convinced that the outcome would have been a lot worse for all of us had we not entered that room in force the way we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although this contract cleared some hurdles it fails in too many others. To say that we'll get a better contract next time around, like the leadership has voiced, is delusional. When are you going to stand up and fight? Is it when you've been beaten down to the ground and have no strength left? That's the road that our present leadership is taken us down.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The IA leadership is ok with that.

If we vote "NO" on this contract and we are to strike, take comfort knowing that production will be shut down across the U.S. because Local 600 (Camera) will also strike and they are a nationwide local.

Are you OK with;

  • Working for $10 hr? New media currently pays this.

  • Double time starting at 14 hours? This doesn't include the one hr lunch.

  • Short turn arounds? Hardly enough time to get to and from work and get 8 hrs sleep.

  • Getting home at 8 am Sat. and being back to work Mon. at 7 am?

  • Producer abuse of the Daily/Weekly pay scales?

  • 400 hrs to qualify for health benefits?

Feel free to add your other notes were this contract falls short.

VOTE NO ON THIS CONTRACT AND URGE OTHER FELLOW IA MEMBERS TO DO THE SAME. ALSO VOTE OUT THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP. Don't forget that this current leadership said that 400 hrs for health bennys was a good thing. I heard those words come out of Jim Osborne's mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last labor strike by the Writer's Guild that lasted 100 days resulted in a larger financial loss to both the writer's and the rest of us in the industry, then their supposed contractual gains. In fact in the end, the WGA gave up much of what it was demanding when it went on strike.

Voting Yes, or NO is your choice. But if the contract is refused, be prepared for a very long strike and a bleak future. Even if 600 and 700 hold the line, we'll need Loeb to tell our Canadian IA brethren to strike in sympathy as well. However, there is probably a "no strike" clause in their contract, much like those in all the other agreements. Production will suddenly shift to Canada and abroad.

The AMPTP would love to see the IA and all other guilds put out of business. They have deep pockets and bigger balls than anyone who believes that a strike authorization will have them begging for mercy.

BTW, No one, even management believes that what they have given up over the last 30 years will ever magically come back in the "next contract". However, that's not the reason to decide to strike. You make your decision on the basis that a strike will get you better terms than were offered. Personally, I think we'll end up with no gains and a lot of pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have disagreed with Mr Lightstone many times over the years but his points are valid and true in regards to the contract. A strike plays into the AMPTP which knows we would fold. They wouldn't even have to export the work out of the country. There is enough non union talent to crew up film/tv/commercials here in LA let alone New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, etc to do the work we get now. While much is deplorable about it, a strike would be worse. As Richard said, "no gain and a lot of pain". I know how I will vote.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that a strike will probably be long and costly. It almost always is very bad.... for both sides. It doesn't matter if it's the NFL Players, the WGA or Ralph's grocery workers, it's always ugly and usually both sides lose. That's not my point.

Unions usually strike to protect their future interests too. When that line is drawn, it's a statement that we are not willing to give up anymore, now or later.

My point is that once the threat of a strike is taken away we lose the only bargaining tool that really matters. The hope is that by taking it to the dangerous brink, the other side blinks. If we give up that crucial bargaining chip, it's all over.

I'm not saying this is the time to strike or not. But if the membership don't ratify this contract and give Loeb a strike authorization, he has a chance to make the producers think twice about the situation. He does not have to call a strike, but he certainly has a mandate from the members that they are willing to strike iF it comes to that.

If everyone is willing to keep bending over now, then the expectation should be that the producers will oblige us. I'm curious to hear discussion on how much we are willing to give up before we are ever willing to call for a strike someday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also feel it's important to align ourselves with the actors guild and any other guild that will join the cause. I f they refuse to shoot out of country then a lot of power has shifted to our side. Why isn't anyone thinking along those lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless we have the Teamsters, Crafts, an even the Actors bargaining together for better conditions, then we don't have the strength to shut anything down. That is the hand we have at this point in time and they (AMPTP) know and play it. I'm for taking the long view and trying to create those crucial alliances so we can exert some power in the future, but we don't have it now no matter how good our bluff is. Just my POV, I'm sure there are others.

The AMPTP has their own problems. They have lost the ability to create a quality product that people want. They are loosing their market share. Labor is not the problem, rather it is a bloated management that cost all the $$$ to make an infiriour product. Reminds me of GM before the crash.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current IA leaders are doing that, Crew... building alliances and repairing the damage done in recent years. For example, where the IA was previously at odds with the Teamsters (a bizarre and inexplicable stance for the IA to have taken,) we sat at the table this time with the Teamsters and Basic Crafts right beside us. First time that's happened in decades. Remember when Tom Short actually ridiculed and spoke out against WGA and their strike? Yuh, well, there are still bridges to rebuild but it actually is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, Laurence. Really good points brought up there.

I got the voting package yesterday. I want to point out that with clarification of the language and attention drawn to paragraph 106 (composition of the sound crew), it will be increasingly likely that boom operators will receive Y-8 wages instead of the customary Y-4 wages. And additionally, the language states that the Y-7a utility person can perform any job other than mixer (which presumably can include Y-4 video playback duties) without any increase in pay. So if the boom operator were to be receiving a Y-4 rate, the utility person would not be eligible to rerate if he/she were to boom throughout the day.

It is odd that the basic is the only agreement in which the boom and utility rates are the same. I wonder how a 1st AC would feel about getting paid the same as a 2nd.

By "clarifying" the language, we have effectively reduced the customary wages of the sound department's most valuable employees. Just wondering if this could be fixed next time around.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you state about Boom Operators getting Y-4 and the Boom Op an Utility rates being the same rate is a situation that has been around for a long long time. Every production has always been able to legally and per the contract pay the Boom Operator the lower rate. Typically and historically, the 1st Boom Op gets Y-4 and the Utility person gets the Boom/Utility rate. The re-rating (upgrading) of the Utility person when they boom seems to be something which is quite variable from production to production, depending to a great degree on what deal (rate) the Utility person is working for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you state about Boom Operators getting Y-4 and the Boom Op an Utility rates being the same rate is a situation that has been around for a long long time. Every production has always been able to legally and per the contract pay the Boom Operator the lower rate. Typically and historically, the 1st Boom Op gets Y-4 and the Utility person gets the Boom/Utility rate. The re-rating (upgrading) of the Utility person when they boom seems to be something which is quite variable from production to production, depending to a great degree on what deal (rate) the Utility person is working for.

I have been been painfully aware of this situation since I managed to lose money in one negotiation when I was a utility person. My mixer was told the boom operator would get the Y-8 rate. He told the UPM that it was customary for the boom operator to receive the Y-4, otherwise he would make the same as the utility. So the UPM said, "Fine. Your utility can be on a Y-7a weekly and the boom operator can be on a Y-8 daily. Now he will make more." And so it went.

Paragraph 106 has been replaced. And in the new language, it is clear to me that the customary payment of Y-4 to the boom operator will become a thing of the past. The language requiring a rerate after 2 hours is now gone. I'm just saying I think that's a shame. It is effectively a reduction in wages for a large group of 695 members.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I believe you are mistaken. Paragraph 106 has not been "replaced". Can you quote the old and the new language you are referring to?

Quoting the 2012 Local 695 Memorandum of Agreement Page 3

2. Composition of Sound Crew

"insert a new third paragraph to Paragraph 106 of the Local #695 Agreement as follows:"...

Language regarding rerates is gone. I believe the old basic had language about performing duties for more than 2 hours... Something like that. I don't have a copy on hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly... a new 3rd paragraph... but 106 wasn't replaced. All they did was add the 3rd paragraph which only says that when the production is not recording audio, they aren't required to employ a Mixer or Boom Operator. That's not unreasonable and it's the only thing that changed. Regarding the 2-hour re-rate, I'm not sure if it's just customary or if it once existed in the contract long ago but I know it's not in the 2012 or 2009 or 2006 contracts. It appears the proposed contract does no harm to paragraph 106.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the 2-hour re-rate, I'm not sure if it's just customary or if it once existed in the contract long ago but I know it's not in the 2012 or 2009 or 2006 contracts.

Incorrect. Current 2009-2012 Basic Agreement, page 54, Section 13: Working in Higher Classification: "The provisions of this paragraph do not apply unless the employee is assigned to work in the higher classification for two (2) hours or more."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...